If God is so merciful, then why did Jesus have to be sacrificed?

[Immanuel Can]

Did you read the passage?

ok yes i get it

Well, that would seem to suggest that perhaps hubris is involved in thinking one will not die...and taking it for granted, especially with the idea "God won't judge," would seem hubristic...maybe, as you say, sinful -- for that reason.

So I can't speak for your reasoning, but the reasoning of the man in question seems to have been rather poor.

[osgart]

So then, where does the absolute standard come in to effect? God administering true justice to the human race.

I really believe in an absolute truth that is good for all.

I just fail to see it in operation .

we still abort babies in this country instead of posting them for adoption.

I think one has to commit their own selves to truth and not expect it in society.

if life is eternal we owe duty to truth. if we cease to exist than it's probably best to invoke truth anyway and not ever expect that humans can create utopia. because they can't and won't.

I suppose that human nature is one of error and false pride. that by nature mankind is warring. So law in America is set up based on the premise that corruption must never go unchecked and that coupled with inalienable rights of equality the law in America succeeds.

take away that equality and you have oppressive dictatorship. take away checks and balances and the notion of absolute power corrupts absolutely and America destroys itself.

American law isn't perfect but the founding fathers were wise.

now technology offers quality of life. And so long as their is quality of life than people will avoid war at all costs.

so there are a lot of checks and balances that keep humans free and at the same time restrained from their nature of corruption.

it will never be perfect and the poor and middle class will always suffer human ills and create them but for the most part people maintain the outwArd peace. even if on the inside they are warring.

[Dontaskme]

We don't ask lions to have a conscience about killing gazelles, or even malaria mosquitoes to have a conscience for killing us.

Perhaps the animals are already saved and don't need to have a conscience. Lets think about it,they are already in paradise, they are not fallen from grace like humans are...In the Noah' Ark story, no animal was left behind in the great flood. They are just as much a part of the story of life as we are, they feel bliss as well. They are also subject to many hardships and pain and discomforts just like us, but they do not suffer from those, and they certainly do not suffer from a conscience like we do. They essentially don't suffer in the way we think they do...so they are in a kind of paradise just the way nature planned it. A paradise that we could be envy of, so sometimes I think humans are not the brightest stars in the universe even though they'd like to think they are.

[Dontaskme]

Did you read the passage?

ok yes i get it

Well, that would seem to suggest that perhaps hubris is involved in thinking one will not die...and taking it for granted, especially with the idea "God won't judge," would seem hubristic...maybe, as you say, sinful -- for that reason.

So I can't speak for your reasoning, but the reasoning of the man in question seems to have been rather poor.

Well obviously you can't get inside my reasoning IC....except to project your own view on the matter....but what I mean, and I mean it literally, is that I know I'm immortal because I know I'm mortal.

I know I can't die, because I know I have never been born, and in my view that is knowing God.

But I don't think you agree with that premise of reasoning. . . and that's okay..we can agree to disagree with each other, it's our dream prerogative to think what we like. I think that's what thinking is meant to be used for...else why would it appear to exist.. ?

.

[Immanuel Can]

Perhaps the animals are already saved and don't need to have a conscience.

So then...we're not just animals. We're not equivalent to them, because, you say, unlike them, we "have a conscience" and are not "already saved," as you put it. I'm sure there are other differences too, but these are two you just named.

[Dontaskme]

Perhaps the animals are already saved and don't need to have a conscience.

So then...we're not just animals. We're not equivalent to them, because, you say, unlike them, we "have a conscience" and are not "already saved," as you put it. I'm sure there are other differences too, but these are two you just named.

We're not animals and neither are animals.

The 'conscience' is not human.

There's just life living itself on many different levels of creative expression.

The idea that named things are real is an illusion. God is tacit. To see God, the eye has to look inward to what's looking...which is pure nameless awareness...every name/meaning belong to that only. .Consciousness is the relation between the information field of awareness and itself inform operating as a self sustaining feedback loop that gives you/awareness a sense of self. It's made of subtle energy. A field of pure potentiality with infinite possibility and creativity. It's self evident as witnessed in the multiplicity that is this one energy inform.The heart has to feel what's feeling..the heart is tacit.

As the sense of self arises which it does in the nameless named energy appearing as a ''human'' ...there is an innate knowing that the conscience is God's and not mine...that's why God says let your conscience be your guide. And is why when you do wrong, you automatically know, because God is sinless, pure love and cannot be harmed in any shape or form. . unless you come back into alignment with truth you will be out of balance and your well being will feel dis-ease.

[Belinda]

Osgart wrote:

we still abort babies in this country instead of posting them for adoption.

Better to provide contraception and contraceptive advice and education free for all regardless of wealth ,poverty , educational level, social race, religion, or social class.

[Immanuel Can]

Osgart wrote:

we still abort babies in this country instead of posting them for adoption.

Better to provide contraception and contraceptive advice and education free for all regardless of wealth ,poverty , educational level, social race, religion, or social class.

Where I live, there are many contraceptive methods available, all quite cheap, some government subsidized, and proper, scientific sex education is mandatory.

But our sex education, it seems, doesn't really work. We still have thousands of abortions every year, and statistically, about 99% of them are for non-health, non-rape reasons. It seems that whatever our educators are telling the students, it's failing to connect with how they live. And having the contraceptives so easily available apparently isn't the whole answer either.

[uwot]

...But our sex education, it seems, doesn't really work...

So what is wrong, and how would you make it better?

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Where I live, there are many contraceptive methods available, all quite cheap, some government subsidized, and proper, scientific sex education is mandatory.

But our sex education, it seems, doesn't really work. We still have thousands of abortions every year, and statistically, about 99% of them are for non-health, non-rape reasons. It seems that whatever our educators are telling the students, it's failing to connect with how they live. And having the contraceptives so easily available apparently isn't the whole answer either.

My answer is the same as Uwot's : how can you make it better?

For instance, are there free condom dispensers in public places not only in public toilets, ladies' rest rooms etc. ? Are the educational material and the teachers fit for the purpose of informing without judging? Is sex education about relationships as well as the mechanics of contraception? Is there a judgemental attitude towards unmarried sex?

Recreational sex is here to stay. That is a fact of life. We should be practical.

Mods, sorry about the tangent. I'll desist now.

[Immanuel Can]

My answer is the same as Uwot's : how can you make it better?

I don't pay attention to uwot. Long ago, he has evinced a suicidal hatred and contempt for God that I try to avoid provoking, for his sake. He may not think he has a soul to lose, but I do. So as a Christian, I must still care for that, and not encourage him to make his own situation worse.

But I was just pointing out to you that saying, well, we've got contraceptives, isn't an answer to the abortion problem, apparently. My real concern is not to reopen that issue (I've discussed it at length elsewhere) but to restore it to the discussion as an exemplar of the larger problem of injustice.

[thedoc]

Strictly speaking, Jesus didn't have to be sacrificed for God to forgive, but people of the time and some people still today will not accept forgiveness without some sort of sacrifice. The sacrifice was played out to satisfy the blood lust of the people of the time.

[Immanuel Can]

Strictly speaking, Jesus didn't have to be sacrificed for God to forgive, but people of the time and some people still today will not accept forgiveness without some sort of sacrifice. The sacrifice was played out to satisfy the blood lust of the people of the time.

I don't think that's it. That turns the whole situation into mere theatrics. There ere much better explanations, I would suggest.

[uwot]

I don't pay attention to uwot.

And I don't pay any attention to you not paying any attention to me.

Long ago, he has evinced a suicidal hatred and contempt for God that I try to avoid provoking...

I've made the point many times over, that the religious create gods in their own image. It isn't your god that provokes contempt, it is your insistence that individuals conform to your definitions of them.
(For anyone not there at the time, Mr Can insisted that atheists are irrational, because they believe there is no god. It was pointed out by several members that is not what atheism entails. All an atheist need say to qualify is 'I don't believe there is a god.' which is different to 'I believe there is no god.' Mr Can either couldn't or wouldn't accept that and continued to call people irrational for not believing in something there is no evidence for.)

...for his sake. He may not think he has a soul to lose, but I do. So as a Christian, I must still care for that, and not encourage him to make his own situation worse.

This too is contemptible. Rather than care for my lost soul, by trying to repair the damage you have caused by provoking my "suicidal hatred and contempt for God", you simply abandon my immortal soul to whatever eternal punishment your intervention has earnt it. Thanks a lot, Mr Can. Before you turned up, I was marked down for a bit of nice, cozy everlasting hellfire; now I have to put up with some demon flagellating me. If the devil is as cruel as you apparently believe, it will have your face.

[thedoc]

Strictly speaking, Jesus didn't have to be sacrificed for God to forgive, but people of the time and some people still today will not accept forgiveness without some sort of sacrifice. The sacrifice was played out to satisfy the blood lust of the people of the time.

I don't think that's it. That turns the whole situation into mere theatrics. There ere much better explanations, I would suggest.

What are those "better explanations" than mere theatrics.